Rudy Villanueva v. Mildred Rivera, No. 13-7490 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7490 RUDY VILLANUEVA, a/k/a Bird Road Rudy, a/k/a King Rudy, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MILDRED L. RIVERA, Warden FCI Supervisor of Religious Services, Estill; CHAPLAIN NEAL, Defendants - Appellees, and ADMINISTRATIVE PRISONS, REMEDY S COMMITTEE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (5:12-cv-00399-MGL) Submitted: January 3, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rudy Villanueva, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Rudy Villanueva, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Appellees on Villanueva s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). timely filing of a notice jurisdictional requirement. of appeal in a civil [T]he case is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on March 4, 2013. The notice earliest, on September 13, 2013. of appeal was filed, at the Because Villanueva failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We Although Villanueva filed a Rule 4(a)(6) motion to reopen, the motion was not filed within the time period set forth in that rule. 3 dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.